The Cyndustries List

Hi,
I´m still trying to make up my mind wether a ZO is important to me or not.  ;-)
Reading the manual I learn that the ZO´s morph output levels are adjusted to _sound_ the same. 
(i.e. a square waves have a lower amplitude than a triangle)
While this is a nice feature for morphs in the audio range I have serious doubts if I want this happening when I´m running the ZO as a modulator in the LFs.
Is it possible to mod a ZO in a way to make this "level compensation" (whatever term you use) switchable? 
Any other thoughts on this?

  Thanks, Michael. (seeing the deadline approaching in big steps)

--- In The_Cyndustries_List@yahoogroups.com, "tontaub" <egroups@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,

Hi Michael!

> I´m still trying to make up my mind wether a ZO is important to me or not.  ;-)

Ha!


> Reading the manual I learn that the ZO´s morph output levels are adjusted to _sound_ 
the same. (i.e. a square waves have a lower amplitude than a triangle)

> While this is a nice feature for morphs in the audio range I have serious doubts if I want 
this happening when I´m running the ZO as a modulator in the LFs.

For most applications it's not really any big deal at all, in fact it seems to add even more 
LIFE to the sound that there is yet another layer of modulation.  
If on the otherhand, a specific scientific or calculated approach requires the precision of 
a constant amplitude waveform, then one has available the five non-morphing constant 
amplitude waveform outputs to use, (Sine, Triangle, Pulse/Square, Saw, RevSaw).

An inverter and a DC Coupled VCA or CrossFade might be easily patched-up to act 
as an "Auto Morph Amplitude Compensation"  circuit, but the amplitude thing had yet
to present itself as any real problem to anyone thus far.

There is a ~Universe~ of interesting things to try with a Zeroscillator and anyone who 
already has one will tell you to, 'Take the plunge, You're gonna Love it!'

Cynthia 

> Is it possible to mod a ZO in a way to make this "level compensation" (whatever term 
you use) switchable? 

> Any other thoughts on this?

> 
>   Thanks, Michael. (seeing the deadline approaching in big steps)
>

Hi Cynthia!

> For most applications it's not really any big deal at all, in fact it seems to add even more 
> LIFE to the sound that there is yet another layer of modulation.  

As you say, that depends on the application.

> If on the otherhand, a specific scientific or calculated approach requires the precision of 
> a constant amplitude waveform, then one has available the five non-morphing constant 
> amplitude waveform outputs to use, (Sine, Triangle, Pulse/Square, Saw, RevSaw).

I'm into heavy experimental noise stuff where "noise" doesn't imply 
inaccuracy. That's why I'm using high grade analouge electronics.
My (our) approaches sometimes appear to be rather academic while I don't 
want to call it like this (it would be an offence to an real academic).
So I'm pondering if I could achieve the desired accuracy anyway or not 
and, most important, if we need that.

> An inverter and a DC Coupled VCA or CrossFade might be easily patched-up to act 
> as an "Auto Morph Amplitude Compensation"  circuit, but the amplitude thing had yet
> to present itself as any real problem to anyone thus far.

I think I just will have to find this out.

   Thanks, Michael.